This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is at once evident that the instant certiorari action is merely being used by the petitioner to make up for his failure to promptly interpose an appeal from the CA's June 24, 2008 Decision and March 4, 2009 Resolution. "However, a special civil action under Rule 65 cannot cure petitioner's failure to timely file a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court."[26] It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[27] | |||||
|
2012-03-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A writ of preliminary injunction is available to prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated.[25] The requisites for its issuance are: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[26] For the writ to issue, the right sought to be protected must be a present right, a legal right which must be shown to be clear and positive.[27] This means that the persons applying for the writ must show that they have an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint.[28] | |||||
|
2010-09-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is undisputed that petitioner appealed the CSCRO IV's decision almost three years from receipt thereof. Undoubtedly, the appeal was filed way beyond the reglementary period when the decision had long become final and executory. As held in Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission,[13] citing Talento v. Escalada, Jr.[14] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Two requisites must exist to warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, namely: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[33] | |||||
|
2009-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, petitioners failed to observe the rule on hierarchy of courts when they directly sought relief before this Court. In Talento v. Escalada,[8] we explained: Although the Supreme Court, Regional Trial Courts, and the Court of Appeals have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. Recourse should have been made first with the Court of Appeals and not directly to this Court.[9] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As we explained in Emerlinda S. Talento v. Hon. Remegio M. Escalada, Jr.:[13] | |||||